Jump to content

What If Supreme Court Doesn't Overturn Coa Ruling?


Recommended Posts

The ruling was very limited in scope.

 

The court went out of its way to point that out.

 

The only kind of transaction they ruled on was p2p with compensation. That only.

 

They specifically mentioned, in their footnotes, that the issue of caregiver to ANY patient was NOT covered.

 

That would be section 4(e):

A registered primary caregiver may receive compensation for costs associated with assisting a registered qualifying patient in the medical use of marihuana. Any such compensation shall not constitute the sale of controlled substances.

 

Note that it is "a" patient, not "their" patient.

 

The court noticed this and took pains to insure it wasn't covered in the decision.

 

So .. if it sticks it doesn't matter. In the long run.

 

The problem right now is that everyone thinks the COA said every dispensary is illegal. They did not. Just the same, people will probably be arrested based on this false belief. Realizing this, many closed down ASAP. A major shock to the supply for the patients of Michigan.

 

Edit .. I'm wrong. This could impact the farmers market. They might require that only caregivers man the tables.

Bud tenders in dispensaries would also be required to be caregivers.

 

One thing this would do is make it so that persons with drug related felonies could not be involved in such transactions.

Edited by peanutbutter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Terribly destructive opinion. It took away the protections of the MMMA for patients involved in the "Sale" of medical Marijuana. Huge defeat for human rights. The state of Michigan preying on human suffering. It is just plain wrong. Thanks, bb

 

Sorry .. my tone was kinda like "beat us and we will still be there."

 

IOW We will survive this somehow.

 

That was the target.

 

Schuette put a spin on this that doesn't seem to have had the effect he wished to see. There seems to be some resistance to his commands? It's still early. For the time being, there seem to be areas of the state that are still functioning. Those locations that are still open are doing so at great risk to themselves. But they're still open.

 

One odd effect is that most people think they are all closed. Which has slowed business. Perhaps patients are afraid of being caught in the line of fire. Wouldn't blame them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Terribly destructive opinion. It took away the protections of the MMMA for patients involved in the "Sale" of medical Marijuana. Huge defeat for human rights. The state of Michigan preying on human suffering. It is just plain wrong. Thanks, bb

 

DOUGH!! I overlooked the patient trying to make a small income by supplying the dispensaries. Caregivers also.

 

Just in time to close the market before harvest. Jerks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People are making some very hard choices right now that have a high risk of impact on them for the rest of their lives.

 

The ruling could have been much worse. As it is, it is a first swipe. With pre defined areas of future fights. If it can be knocked down, then the rest of the fights won't need to take place.

 

I believe Schuette misrepresented this ruling to the state. The media extended the impact of the misrepresentation. It would be nice if he would protect the citizens and retract his statement. This is the major source of the disruption of the supply of medicine to the patients of the state.

 

If this one is lost, there will be test case after case. Years of fighting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny how many people missed that.

 

Bill Schuette told everyone that the ruling made all transfers illegal. At least I think he did.

 

Can anyone post his exact statement?

 

tia

 

 

I posited this position (I kind of felt this way too but was given the impression they used more semantic gymnastics to deal with the others) to the PA in Otsego County. I am awaiting an e-mail response, idk if you know our PA but he is one of the few on our side. I'm hoping he will acknowledge that the COA does not address CG2 any p in his response. I hadn't, unfortunately, caught the subnote on this issue, until after I met with him. Though an e-mail response saying it would be better than him saying it in person I suspect. Of course he may be evasive and not agree, idk yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DOUGH!! I overlooked the patient trying to make a small income by supplying the dispensaries. Caregivers also.

 

Just in time to close the market before harvest. Jerks.

 

This was an immediate thought of mine too.

 

A close friend of mine told me Thursday that leo was following

patients leaving the shop he was tending. He did not know if

anyone had been pulled over, as he needed to stay put.

A call came in later to 'shut it down'. They did and scooted out

just b4 leo arrived. Danged scary times imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You must be talking about footnote 16. It says just the opposite. You have to read the rest of the decision to understand this flawed logic. The COA say section (4)(e) is not a "Sale". Let's start with footnote 16.

 

16 In addition, because the “medical use” of marihuana does not include the “sale” of marihuana,

defendants are not entitled to receive compensation for the costs of assisting in the “sale” of

marihuana between CA members. See MCL 333.26424(e) (“A registered primary caregiver may

receive compensation for costs associated with assisting a registered qualifying patient in the

medical use of marihuana.”). Also, in regard to § 4(e), the parties disagree whether a registered

primary caregiver may receive compensation for the costs associated with assisting any

registered qualifying patient in the “medical use” of marihuana or whether a registered primary

caregiver may only receive compensation for assisting the qualifying patients with whom he or

she is connected through the MDCH registry process. Because of our conclusion that the

“medical use” of marihuana does not include the “sale” of marihuana, we need not, and therefore

do not, resolve this dispute.

 

Now read the following. Since (4)(e) is not a "Sale", it is allowed.

 

They assert that § 4(i) entitles them to assist registered qualifying patients

with patient-to-patient transfers and that § 4(e) allows them to be compensated for their

assistance. Defendants also assert that they are entitled to the presumption of § 4(d) that they are

engaged in the “medical use” of marihuana.

 

We note that two other provisions of the MMMA, § 4(e) and § 4(k), speak of the sale or

of the selling of marihuana. However, neither provision supports defendants’ proposition that

the MMMA authorizes the “sale” of marihuana.

 

First, § 4(e) authorizes a registered primary caregiver to receive compensation for costs

associated with assisting a registered qualifying patient in the medical use of marihuana. MCL

333.26424(e). However, § 4(e) goes on to state that “[a]ny such compensation shall not

constitute the sale of controlled substances.” Id. This quoted sentence would not be needed if

the definition of the “medical use” of marihuana included the “sale” of marihuana. No statutory

provision should be rendered nugatory. Apsey v Mem Hosp, 477 Mich 120, 131; 730 NW2d 695

(2007). Consequently, § 4(e) actually supports the conclusion that the “medical use” of

marihuana does not include the “sale” of marihuana.

 

In conclusion, the “medical use” of marihuana does not include patient-to-patient “sales”

of marihuana, and neither § 4(e) nor § 4(k) permits the sale of marihuana. Defendants, therefore,

have no authority under the MMMA to operate a marihuana dispensary that actively engages in

and carries out patient-to-patient sales of marihuana.16 Accordingly, defendants’ operation of

CA is not in accordance with the provisions of the MMMA.17

 

Okay, so what I am reading then is that medical use doesn't include sale. Sales are not allowed. If a patient does it its by definition a sale (to receive compensation.) But by definition a transfer for compensation (per 4e) is not a sale, but only a cg is protected?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have not engaged in much discussion of this decision though I have read it numerous times.

 

I have come to the same conclusion that Blueberry has reached (a while back I might add). The "Farmer Market" model with each caregiver managing their own cannabis, appears to comport with the MMMAct and this decision. Caregivers are the only people authorized by the MMMAct to receive compensation for cannabis from patients. All transactions MUST be between a caregiver and a patient. Caregivers would not be allowed to acquire cannabis for their patients from the caregivers operating at this location.

 

Any organization, for profit or non-profit, may provide a venue and other amenities to facilitate caregivers, and receive a fee. As long as the business never possesses or buys/sells cannabis directly, and simply charges caregivers a rental fee, membership fee, or any other fees to generate revenue for the business, that business would appear to be legal (IMHO).

 

A viable dispensary would consist of a medium-sized building (2,000 s.f.). Inside, I would create 12 (or more) separate 10x10 cubicles, each with it's own locking steel door and a floor safe (kinda like a shopping mall). I would require an annual membership for entry into the building of $10 per month or $100 per year for caregivers and patients. That assures the building can pay it's rent, utilities, security and administrative costs. I would charge caregivers (and other vendors)a rental fee for use of each cubicle, that's how owners and investors make their money.

 

Owners won't get rich off this model, but they will make money. Patients will have access, and caregivers will be able to recover their costs.

 

As far as I can see, the only bad part of this decision is that it leaves the courageous folks from Compassionate Apothecary on the hook for a felony. Other then that, it basically affirms many of the positions our community holds dear, including the sanctity of the patient-caregiver relationship, and the IMMUNITY registered patients and caregivers enjoy from prosecution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ruling was very limited in scope.

 

The court went out of its way to point that out.

 

The only kind of transaction they ruled on was p2p with compensation. That only.

 

They specifically mentioned, in their footnotes, that the issue of caregiver to ANY patient was NOT covered.

 

That would be section 4(e):

 

 

Note that it is "a" patient, not "their" patient.

 

The court noticed this and took pains to insure it wasn't covered in the decision.

 

So .. if it sticks it doesn't matter. In the long run.

 

The problem right now is that everyone thinks the COA said every dispensary is illegal. They did not. Just the same, people will probably be arrested based on this false belief. Realizing this, many closed down ASAP. A major shock to the supply for the patients of Michigan.

 

Edit .. I'm wrong. This could impact the farmers market. They might require that only caregivers man the tables.

Bud tenders in dispensaries would also be required to be caregivers.

 

One thing this would do is make it so that persons with drug related felonies could not be involved in such transactions.

 

 

It is important that this information gets out This is a important piece of knowledge everyone should contemplate since the COA opinion on the Mt Pleasant Apothecary

 

The system is not going to help us create anything workable without a constant push . Because the status quo policy in flux simply creates tso many jobs for those involved in Prohibition with a huge voice in Lansing . Even when we tighten down compliance for the transfers where it cannot be disputed it is only the front end of the transaction . At some point to be legal we must also address the back-end if nobody else will . Prohibitionists will simply start using taxation to destroy a legal framework to disrupt patient access for years . This is how discrimination hides yet rares it's ugly head . .

 

I know they cover taxation in a few courses out there but it must become public knowledge easily obtained so people understand the participants involved are serious about bringing medicinal cannabis use and supply out of the underground . As you and many of the leaders here have said before with legality also comes increased responsibility .

 

People say you can get anything now , everyone is taken care of . That is not true at all . Genetics are a major problem as well as is access to those home bound or in Foster Care , Assisted Living , and Nursing homes . Since many of these entities often receive some sort of Federal Substance Abuse Funds and run programs they are closed minded toward accepting the Act in practice . There residents are often powerless to move or effect their rights . .

 

As I stated before Shirley Chisholm influenced me in my youth with her words that we are all prejudice . She challenged me to question myself , recognize and attempt to correct those prejudices and hope where I cannot others will not rise in anger but politely point them out and let me reason the proper conclusion as i desire to be a good man . This also applies to our opposition whose policies are failed , do not apply to medicinal use any longer , are injuring our democracy as well as being utilized corruptly by evil parties for political and economic gain on both sides of the law . It is sad the knowledge on shrinking cancerous tumor growth has been known for decades * and hypothesized before that . it is absolutely incredible their is any argument against medicinal cannabis at all in this day and age . The true criminals are those still trying to injure patients with prohibitionist policy and putting up barriers to research . The comfort many have received is absolutely remarkable . I cook a meal again daily and brush my teeth every night is a simple but realistic response to what is occurring . Not measurable in any Governmental statistical record probability chart or economic table but a miracle to program participants .

 

* we need research now as cannabis is known to effect hormones in the body and thus may not act the same on all sources of cancerous tumor growth . It is unbelievable discrimination has prevented over 70 years of unbiased research to occur with the evolution of modern advances . It is a terrible travesty that otherwise good people are creating so much suffering under the mistaken belief it is for the greater common good . I have to hope the Supreme Justices of Michigan will be well informed and versed when they rule on this case and consider the intent of the act , needs of participants , along with requirements of a workable legal environment .

Edited by Croppled1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have not engaged in much discussion of this decision though I have read it numerous times.

 

I have come to the same conclusion that Blueberry has reached (a while back I might add). The "Farmer Market" model with each caregiver managing their own cannabis, appears to comport with the MMMAct and this decision. Caregivers are the only people authorized by the MMMAct to receive compensation for cannabis from patients. All transactions MUST be between a caregiver and a patient. Caregivers would not be allowed to acquire cannabis for their patients from the caregivers operating at this location.

 

Any organization, for profit or non-profit, may provide a venue and other amenities to facilitate caregivers, and receive a fee. As long as the business never possesses or buys/sells cannabis directly, and simply charges caregivers a rental fee, membership fee, or any other fees to generate revenue for the business, that business would appear to be legal (IMHO).

 

A viable dispensary would consist of a medium-sized building (2,000 s.f.). Inside, I would create 12 (or more) separate 10x10 cubicles, each with it's own locking steel door and a floor safe (kinda like a shopping mall). I would require an annual membership for entry into the building of $10 per month or $100 per year for caregivers and patients. That assures the building can pay it's rent, utilities, security and administrative costs. I would charge caregivers (and other vendors)a rental fee for use of each cubicle, that's how owners and investors make their money.

 

Owners won't get rich off this model, but they will make money. Patients will have access, and caregivers will be able to recover their costs.

 

As far as I can see, the only bad part of this decision is that it leaves the courageous folks from Compassionate Apothecary on the hook for a felony. Other then that, it basically affirms many of the positions our community holds dear, including the sanctity of the patient-caregiver relationship, and the IMMUNITY registered patients and caregivers enjoy from prosecution.

 

It just doesn't' seem very efficient . The ruling on every patient having to have a separate locked and enclosed area was a extreme barrier to access . I cannot imagine anyone supporting a brick and mortar operation if a Farmers Market Model was available unless they were from the group of patients now unserved in Foster Care , Nursing homes etc . People would cry it is to dangerous but I wish the State allowed people to use their real local Farmers Markets . It would integrate patients in their communities as well as use existing facilities that need support .

 

 

If we believe it would be too dangerous then we need to rethink how severe our current penalties are for cultivation for personal use supporting pricing in the black market .

 

Only 14% of cannabis users in the State are patients . It is a restricted market segment of patients that desire legal recognition . So far the only people profiting are those who have been selling the picks and shovels into the perceived Cannabis Gold Rush or enforcing forfeiture , fines and probation on the exposed participants . I do not see that changing soon . Though things are improving as legal lines are defined . There are allot more then the 85000 patients who in the line of fire who are afraid of change due to fears of economic loss . I love your entrepreneurial spirit .

 

I imagine in time a corperate supply model will be proposed . I may be wrong but it seems that the protection of the micro growers almost requires they go along with it in some spirit of cooperation .

Edited by Croppled1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have not engaged in much discussion of this decision though I have read it numerous times.

 

I have come to the same conclusion that Blueberry has reached (a while back I might add). The "Farmer Market" model with each caregiver managing their own cannabis, appears to comport with the MMMAct and this decision. Caregivers are the only people authorized by the MMMAct to receive compensation for cannabis from patients. All transactions MUST be between a caregiver and a patient. Caregivers would not be allowed to acquire cannabis for their patients from the caregivers operating at this location.

Any organization, for profit or non-profit, may provide a venue and other amenities to facilitate caregivers, and receive a fee. As long as the business never possesses or buys/sells cannabis directly, and simply charges caregivers a rental fee, membership fee, or any other fees to generate revenue for the business, that business would appear to be legal (IMHO).

 

A viable dispensary would consist of a medium-sized building (2,000 s.f.). Inside, I would create 12 (or more) separate 10x10 cubicles, each with it's own locking steel door and a floor safe (kinda like a shopping mall). I would require an annual membership for entry into the building of $10 per month or $100 per year for caregivers and patients. That assures the building can pay it's rent, utilities, security and administrative costs. I would charge caregivers (and other vendors)a rental fee for use of each cubicle, that's how owners and investors make their money.

 

Owners won't get rich off this model, but they will make money. Patients will have access, and caregivers will be able to recover their costs.

 

As far as I can see, the only bad part of this decision is that it leaves the courageous folks from Compassionate Apothecary on the hook for a felony. Other then that, it basically affirms many of the positions our community holds dear, including the sanctity of the patient-caregiver relationship, and the IMMUNITY registered patients and caregivers enjoy from prosecution.

 

Brad, could you elucidate your reasoning on this point?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Darn why do I get this massive feeling of betrayal and being lied to. Nothing more than a trap for innocent people to meet Law Enforcement. Be dragged threw the meat grinder. laughed at ridiculed harassed called names ( POTHEAD ) comes to mind . I thought this was the law. Not a piece of clay to be molded and changed in mid stream. Well as of today giving up tired of the fight that never ends. And the lack of support in this matter. Who ever wrote this so called law thanks for nothing . Putting sick people out their on that tree limb to be sawed off. people that wrote this law need a swift kick in the balls. Thanks for giving the powers that be the opportunity to make my last three years a living night mare. Thanks again form the bottom of my heart

Edited by Kingpinn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Larry, I have read your COA many times. You are right, you were railroaded by the COA. The decision was not only flawed, it was dishonest. King should have relied on Redden as a foundation. It should have also not connected section 4&8 via section 7. The plain English translation is far from what the decision the COA reached. Larry, all of us have been stripped of our rights. One at a time by an activist court. Most of us are terrified. I look at my family each morning as if it is the last time I will see them as a free man. Because that may be the case. I know how you feel.

 

These are sick people out here Larry. I am a sick person. The people have never abandoned you my friend. They showed up last Wed. by the bus full to protest what has happened. The people out here will do whatever it takes to defend this law. You are angry at your friends, not the people who did this to you. I ask you please to consider your words. I have friends that were there that have terrible cancers. Yet they stood for as much as five hours, to protest what has been done to you and others. Thanks, Bb

 

:goodjob: :goodjob:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share



×
×
  • Create New...